Posted on 07/13/2008 11:15:56 PM PDT by Schnucki
The US brewer Anheuser-Busch has agreed to be taken over by Belgium-based InBev, in a move that will create the world's largest beer maker.
The $50bn (£25bn) takeover bid by InBev, which makes Stella Artois beer, was accepted by Anheuser's board.
The combined company will now be called Anheuser-Busch InBev.
Anheuser makes Budweiser - the most popular beer in the US - and some US politicians had expressed anger at the prospect of a foreign takeover.
'Unrivalled brands'
In a concession to political concerns about the deal, Budweiser's headquarters will remain in St Louis, Missouri while none of Anheuser's US breweries will be closed.
InBev is offering to pay $70 a share for Anheuser in a deal which must be approved by shareholders of both businesses.
The combined business will have annual sales of $36.4bn, equivalent to 460 million hectoliters of beer a year.
It will bring a host of popular brands including Beck's, Hoegaarden and Staropramen - in addition to Budweiser and Stella - under one roof.
InBev, itself formed by a giant merger several years ago, described the deal as "historic".
"Together, Anheuser-Busch and InBev will be able to accomplish much more than each can on its own," said InBev boss Carlos Brito, who will become chief executive of the new firm.
"This combination will create a stronger, more competitive global company with an unrivalled worldwide brand portfolio and distribution network, with great potential for growth all over the world."
Anheuser boss August Busch said the transaction would "enhance global market access for Budweiser, one of America's truly iconic brands".
Job concerns
There are widespread fears that the deal will lead to substantial job losses in the US Midwest at a time while the threat of recession is hanging over the economy.
The two firms have said the deal will generate annual savings of $1.5bn but have suggested that job losses will be kept to a minimum because there is little current overlap between the two businesses.
Anheuser currently controls nearly half of the US market, while InBev is strong in Western European and Latin American markets. Anheuser also owns stakes in Mexican brewer Grupo Modelo and Chinese brewer Tsingtao.
The deal should give Budweiser a platform to boost its growth in Europe where, apart from a number of markets like the UK, it has been relatively weak.
The beer market has been rapidly consolidating in the face of cost pressures and declining sales in many mature markets.
Scottish & Newcastle, the UK's largest brewer, was recently bought out by Heineken and Carlsberg.
Some guy on CNBC this morning assured viewers that InBev wouldnt melt the Clydesdales down for glue as part of their huge cuts. There were a bunch of howls in the studio. I was listening on XM on the drive into work.
Who says they’re holding US dollars? Once you stick money in the bank the original symbols become unimportant. You can put Canadian dollars in a US bank and they’ll run the exchange and you’ll have US dollars in your account, and the reverse holds.
As for costing jobs why would this one do that? You don’t really think they’re going to want to ship the entire annual consumption of Budweiser across the Pacific do you? If that were a great plan AB would already be doing it, they have more breweries in China than the US now. Sure some of the administrative stuff will probably evaporate but that’s just standard when 2 companies become 1, the new merged company doesn’t usually need as many managers as the individual companies did. And the name Budweiser isn’t going to disappear, that name has greater recognition in the US and even foreign markets than probably any other brand in history except maybe Coke.
The reality is this is just another corporate take over. They happen all the time. The only thing that makes this one any different is that it involves one of our perceived “flag ship” companies that usually takes over other companies rather than being bought by them.
If not, it will certainly do until perfect beer comes along...
That’s a good one BK.
I don’t look for immediate changes. By mid 2010 to 2011, I think we’ll be seeing more changes than we thought we would.
Why would there be any changes other than chopping some middle management (which will happen within months of the deal finishing)? They’re not going to want to ship that much beer across the ocean, too expensive. Heck they already don’t ship Stella Artois across the ocean, they have the stuff sold in America brewed right here in America. And guess which company does all the American brewing and distributing of Stella Artois. Anheuser Busch. AB does a lot of beer “importing” (brewing foreign beer here), heck they’re why we celebrate Cinco De Mayo here, AB was having a hard time getting Corona to sell and they hooked on CDM as a great marketing gimmick.
Take a look at all the products AB actually makes, think about the total volume of stuff that is to move across the ocean. Think about all the stuff they produce that already COULD be getting shipped across the ocean but isn’t. What about getting bought by inBev changes any of that?
I’m willing to watch this over time. We can watch to see how it turns out. Perhaps you’re right.
I don’t care for it.
It’s going to turn out like most corporate purchases, very little will change. I’ve survived way too many corporate purchases in every direction including a three company merger with one of them in India. The domain name sometimes changes, the masthead changes, some people whose efforts are considered duplicate go away, but by and large you meet the new boss and he’s the same as the old boss.
That’s a nice rosey way of putting it, but it is never that simple. I’ve been through corporate mergers myself.
Consolidation can take far more jobs that you are willing to admit.
It depends on the specifics. What you think is reasonable is rarely what the corporate board members will.
My most recent brush with the phenominon saw about 80% of the employees of four different concerns lose their jobs by the time consolidation was over. Local middle and upper management was destroyed. Government and corporate regulations and requirements, made simply impossible to meet due to the corporations own directives.
I also saw this concern lose between 25 and 40% of it’s business due to these actions.
The running theory is that corporations are much leaner, more profitable, and much more sound after these mergers.
Well, that’s all PC and wonderful, but it isn’t always the case.
But there’s no reason for anything like that in this case. Look at what we know:
We know inBev doesn’t consider brewing overseas and shipping to America to be economical
We know inBev doesn’t consider their own distribution methods sufficient for the American market
We know these things because inBev already has AB do their brewing and distribution in America. Why would they buy AB and then not only move Stella Artois but Budweiser brewing out of America? Give a logical reason why your scenario would happen, why would a company that could but doesn’t ship their product across the ocean change that when the volume of the product that they’d be shipping multiples a thousand fold? It simply does not make sense. WHY would your scenarios happen? Make it make sense.
Would you think a corporation would make decsions that actually destroyed it’s own business and made it vulnerable to government fines, regulation, and intervention? I wouldn’t. You wouldn’t.
You’re make assumptions that may or may not play out. So am I. I’m willing to let it play out and see who is vindicated.
I think we’ve worn this subject out. Thanks for expressing your point of view.
I’m not making any assumptions. You’re the one making all the assumptions. You’re assuming they’re going to move production of all this:
* Budweiser Family
o Budweiser (World Beer Cup Bronze Medal, 1996)
o Bud Light
o Budweiser Select
o Budweiser American Ale (available October 2008)
o Bud Dry
o Bud Ice
o Bud Ice Light
o Budweiser Brewmaster’s Private Reserve
o Bud Light Lime
o Budweiser & Clamato Chelada
o Bud Light & Clamato Chelada
o Bud Extra
* Michelob Family
o Michelob
o Michelob Light
o Michelob Honey Lager
o Michelob AmberBock
o Michelob Golden Draft
o Michelob Golden Draft Light
o Michelob Bavarian Wheat
o Michelob Porter
o Michelob Pale Ale
o Michelob Dunkel Weisse
* Ultra Family
o Michelob Ultra
o Michelob Ultra Amber
o Michelob Ultra Lime Cactus
o Michelob Ultra Pomegranate Raspberry
o Michelob Ultra Tuscan Orange Grapefruit
* Busch Family
o Busch
o Busch Light
o Busch Ice
* The Natural Family
o Natural Light
o Natural Ice
* Specialty Brews
o Bud Extra
o Bare Knuckle Stout
o Anheuser World Lager (discontinued)
o ZiegenBock
o Ascent 54 (Colorado only)
o Redbridge (gluten-free)
o Rolling Rock
o Landshark Lager
o Shock Top (Formerly Spring Heat Spiced Wheat)
o Skipjack Amber Lager (Mid Atlantic Only)
o Wild Blue
* Seasonal Beers
o Sun Dog (New in 2008) (spring)
o Beach Bum Blonde Ale (summer)
o Jack’s Pumpkin Spice Ale (fall)
o Winter’s Bourbon Cask Ale (winter)
* Non-alcohol
o O’Doul’s (World Beer Cup Gold Medal, 2006)
o O’Doul’s Amber (4 World Beer Cup Medals)
o Busch NA
o Budweiser NA (Saudi Arabian Market)
o Budweiser NA Green Apple (Saudi Arabian Market)
* Energy Drinks
o 180 Blue
o 180 Energy
o 180 Red
o 180 Blue Low Calorie
o 180 Sugar Free
* Specialty Organic Beers
o Stone Mill Pale Ale
o Wild Hop Lager
* Specialty Malt Beverages
o Bacardi Silver
o Tequiza
o Tilt
* Spirits and Spirits Distribution Alliances
o Jekyll & Hyde
o Bluecoat Vodka
o Cape North
o Hammer and Sickle Vodka
o Ku Soju
o Margarittaville Tequila
o Purus Organic Wheat Vodka
o Vermont Spirits
* Malt Liquors
o Hurricane Malt Liquor
o Hurricane Ice
o King Cobra
* Craft Distribution Alliances
o Goose Island Beer Co.
o Kona Brewing Co.
o Ray Hill American Pilsner
o Starr Hill Brewing
o Fordham Brewing
o Dominion Brewing
* Harbin Lager
* Tiger Beer
* Kirin
* Bass Ale
* Boddingtons
* Beck’s
* Hoegaarden
* Leffe
* Stella Artois
* Löwenbräu
* Tennent’s Ale
* Budvar Czechvar
* Borba Skin Balance Water
* Monster Energy Drink
* Lost Energy
* Rumba Energy
* Icelandic Glacial Spring Water
off shore. That’s YOUR assumption when you say this is going to cost Americans a lot of jobs. All I’m saying, completely without any assumption, is that such an action simply does not make sense. And because Stella Artois is on that list then inBev already knows off shore production of large quantities of beer is not economical.
I’ve tried to be nice to you. I believe I said you made some points I couldn’t refute. In the end it all boils down to what the corporation in it’s infinite wisdom decides to do.
It doesn’t hinge on what rational arguements you can make.
It doesn’t matter what rational arguements I can make.
It doesn’t matter what rational arguements uppper and middle management at Budweiser make.
It doesnt’ matter what makes sense to it’s stockholders or employees.
Rationality is no indicator of what will or will not take place.
And yes, sadly, you are making a ton of assumptions. You think you have a good reason to do it, and perhaps you do. It’s still no guarantee of future decision outcomes.
I admit that my concerns aren’t either. All I can do is tell you I have concerns here. You don’t, and I accept that.
Sorry but when you say, as you said, that’s it’s going to cost American jobs, then you need to defend that position. Which so far you haven’t even attempted to do, the best you’ve got is to say I’m making assumptions, which isn’t a defense of your position.
Defend your position or admit you’re just another doom and gloomer. WHY would they do it? Give any LOGICAL reason, not some doom and gloom “oh they might not be logical” BS, why they’d move production overseas. Rationality IS an indicator of what will or will not take place and when you say it isn’t you’re really just saying that your position is 100% emotional, and subsequently even less useful than assumption.
If some German really took a liking to your house and offered you $500,000 over market for it, how would you like it if the rest of us voted to stop you from selling it? |
Lived in Germany for several years and couldn’t agree more. I refer to watery US beer as panther piss. Fortunately, there are good American beers now (Sam Adams for example). I hardly ever touch a Bud, Coors etc.
Wow what an incredibly long 100% BS cop out.
There’s nothing wrong with me, I’m just trying to participate in logical discussions of news events. Which apparently from where you sit is an unreasonable demand. Apparently you just want to be able to say the sky is falling and have everyone nod their heads in grim agreement. Sorry bub out in the world of logic we defend our positions, we don’t whine about how the other guy is making unreasonable demands by not just accepting us as smarter.
Now we know the truth, you’re just another doom and gloomer and the very thought that someone might not take your word on everything without the slightest question is offensive. Sorry you can’t be bothered to do a simple little thing like actually give a logical reason for your statement, sorry you’re just an emotion driven guy that assumes everything is going to be horrible and considers little things like proof to be beneath you.
I’m not desperate for anything, I just want you to either bring some logic or admit you can’t. This post is a pretty good job of the later. Congratulations, you have announced top the world that logic is not a part of your position.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Your back-and-forth on this subject makes it sound like you think that someone should stop the people who own A-B stock from selling it. Who is it exactly that should stop Americans from selling their own property if someone offers them a great price?