I hate the global economy. A-B should stay American.
It probably won't make a huge difference, not at first, but it can easily give local brewers a leg up on A-B. There are a lot of people in this country who "buy American," even if it's of inferior (or perceived inferior) quality. This acquisition takes some of the wind out of those sails, but not all.As far as changing the way people drink though, I don't think that this will make a difference. Bud will still be "Made in America", and the general public will probably never even know anything changed.
I hate nationalism and economic protectionism. A-B shareholders should do whatever A-B shareholders want because A-B shareholders own A-B.
Evan I think you might just be my "Arch Nemesis"
Evan I think you might just be my "Arch Nemesis"
Maybe, but InBev tried to move Hoegaarden already (and admittedly backed down over the backlash this caused).The thing is, the breweries won't be moving, the bosses will. I'm sure that every Budweiser bottle sold where I am will still bear the image of the state of Texas atop every label, and the breweries that are employing people in our local economies will still be pumping out pee water.
I dunno about this, I've heard about this story from lots of people, but maybe I just travel in different circles. If it actually goes through, I could see it becoming a real story on a slow news day. Maybe it's good for A-B that we're moving into the culmination of the election cycle.Moreso, I don't see the beer swilling public even ever knowing that this has happened, and if they do, forgetting soon after.
Well, then I'm his evil henchman.... Capitalism >> Socialism.
So for all intents and purposes, the Bud we buy here will still be an American product, made by Americans using American ingredients in America, just being told what to do by Belgian shareholders instead of American shareholders.
. . .
good for our economy by getting millions of Belgian monies pumped into the US economy.
they are hardly a shining example of a "great" American company with their beer-flavored sodas.
Based on your statement if, tomorrow, they replaced Bud & Bud Light with a duplicate of the best homebrew you have ever tasted they would move toward being a great company; from a business perspective it'd be stupid. Besides, taste is subjective; to most beer drinkers, what you and I prefer is considered bad tasting beer.
Rick
There's a ton of quality that goes into making Budweiser, it's just aimed at minimizing flavor. I can't even imagine the difficulty of trying to brew a Budweiser clone at home.Bud will still be Bud (it's not like they can make any cutbacks in quality), and it may also make it easier to get some of InBevs other beers in regular stores over here.
To me, the sign of a great company is wrapped around its return on investment; progress, innovation, and pushing the envelope are only useful as part of the overall goal of maximizing ROI. I've never looked at AB with an intent to invest, so don't really know their performance in any detail at all -- but that's pretty much beside my earlier point anyway; my original response to your post had to do with what I quoted previously, which I took to be your determination that they aren't a great company because you don't like their product. As to your follow-up, we're on the same side of the fence (with the caveat that I would change "qualify" to "deserve" as a cultural icon).For me, the element of progress, innovation and pushing the envelope is missing.
Most people thought this, too, until InBev filed a lawsuit against A-B upon the refusal of the offer, basically trying to allow stockholders to dismiss the board. Those are serious fighting words.As to why A.A.Busch IV rejected the $65 / share bid he's hoping for $70 or $75. Regardless the stock holders will have a say but I do expect InBev to increase the offer.
Most people thought this, too, until InBev filed a lawsuit against A-B upon the refusal of the offer, basically trying to allow stockholders to dismiss the board. Those are serious fighting words.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be, but the article I read about it said that this indicated they had no intention of upping their offer because it's playing hardball and by doing it, they're going to make the A-B board really mad and unlikely to accept any offer.Filing a lawsuit doesn't preclude InBev from upping the offer. Althought it might be cheaper if they could get the courts to side with them. However any court decision will take years if not decades especially if it's appealed, which I sure it would be. So I don't really see a court challenge as a viable remedy if they truely want to do the deal.
Time will tell.
As to why A.A.Busch IV rejected the $65 / share bid he's hoping for $70 or $75. Regardless the stock holders will have a say but I do expect InBev to increase the offer.
After weeks of mounting tensions, The Wall Street Journal reported on its website on Friday that InBev, maker of Stella Artois and Beck's beer, had raised its bid to $70 a share from $65 in an effort to seal a friendly deal.
Anheuser's board is likely to accept the sweetened offer this weekend, the paper said, citing a person familiar with the matter.
Looks like you nailed it, abracadabra:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080711/bs_nm/inbev_anhueser_dc;_ylt=AnGqOEeLgI2hlP4609rOJ6.s0NUE
Heh. That idea didn't even occur to me.Now if I had only taken my own advise and bought some of the stock.
Enter your email address to join: