urbanSTL

Does the name of a holding company matter that much? Not really, it's the branding of the individual beers that matters. With that being said, It's likely they'll incorporate the A-B brand somehow into the combined name of the company.

With the exception of Berkshire Hathaway there probably aren't many holding companies that people directly relate a product/company to.



InBev does say they will incorporate the name somehow but I'm still not sure it will do them much good. AOL TimeWarner anyone?

Don't knock InBev, invite it to St. Louis

By David Nicklaus

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

06/24/2008



Tall, gray-haired and gregarious, Bill Finnie would make a good Don Quixote.



Rather than tilting at windmills on stage, however, Finnie has been pursuing his impossible dream on the radio and TV airwaves. To any interviewer who will listen, he explains why St. Louis should aspire to be the world headquarters of the world's largest brewer.



No, he's not talking about Anheuser-Busch, at least not as it is currently constituted. Finnie says InBev, the Belgian company that's No. 1 in the beer industry, is likely to succeed in its attempt to buy A-B.



So Finnie would like to see our civic leaders change their rhetoric. Rather than making desperate-sounding remarks about stopping the deal, he says, St. Louisans should try to extract two promises.

First, we should ask InBev to change its name to Anheuser-Busch. Second, we should convince it to put its world headquarters in St. Louis.

Link

I can't say I necessarily disagree.

Great issues--definately MBA thesis material.



It always takes be aback when I see Purina remain on Checkerboard Square. But then Nestle is also an almost genericized trademark.



I would bet InBev would not just adopt part of the AB name. In this case, the name of the holding company may be as critical as the individual brands.

hey, if they moved the company here, I wouldn't be totally opposed. I still don't get why AB wasn't the leader before with industry consolidation. and don't get me wrong, I STILL prefer AB not be purchased. [/quote]

Good news IMHO!



Breaking news from the St. Louis Business Journal



Report: A-B prepared to reject InBev bid



Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc. is set to reject Belgian brewer InBev's $46.3 billion unsolicited takeover offer, according to the Wall Street Journal, which quoted people familiar with the situation.



To continue reading click: http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... st=b_ln_hl

If A-B rejects the bid, and is taken over anyway, then at least in the end they appear to have fought and lost to the 'big bad InBev'. (?)



Seems like it would be foolish from a PR perspective for the board to accept the bid outright without a 'fight'. At least if they go down with a fight they can look at their customers and say "Hey, we tried to avoid it but it happened anyway. Blame our shareholders, it's their fault, but please still buy our beer."



What does A-B have to lose by rejecting the bid to save face only to be taken over anyway, assuming that is the intention of the board?

I know there was talk of InBev going after SAB Miller if a deal couldn't reached with AB. Any hope of them changing their target of acquisition?

could AB go after SABMiller? I think AB MIGHT be able to prevent a buyout, now more than I did before. cross your fingers.

dustin wrote:If A-B rejects the bid, and is taken over anyway, then at least in the end they appear to have fought and lost to the 'big bad InBev'. (?)



Seems like it would be foolish from a PR perspective for the board to accept the bid outright without a 'fight'. At least if they go down with a fight they can look at their customers and say "Hey, we tried to avoid it but it happened anyway. Blame our shareholders, it's their fault, but please still buy our beer."



What does A-B have to lose by rejecting the bid to save face only to be taken over anyway, assuming that is the intention of the board?

What I worry about is that if A-B sells off its non-core assets like theme parks and packaging (likely the first cost-cutting moves InBev would make) and the deal still goes through, InBev's cuts will be a lot more painful.

JCity wrote:could AB go after SABMiller? I think AB MIGHT be able to prevent a buyout, now more than I did before. cross your fingers.

Umm, no. SABMiller is the largest beer company in the world. And InBev and SABMiller will not merge either.



Actually, talk is that SABMiller could merge with Modelo upon a successful InBev acquisition of A-B: http://uk.reuters.com/article/mergersNe ... 24?sp=true



Was anyone expecting the A-B board to accept the offer? I don't believe so. The chance of A-B avoiding the buyout has not changed one iota since the board refused the offer. Now is when the real game starts to heat up.

dustin wrote:If A-B rejects the bid, and is taken over anyway, then at least in the end they appear to have fought and lost to the 'big bad InBev'. (?)



Seems like it would be foolish from a PR perspective for the board to accept the bid outright without a 'fight'. At least if they go down with a fight they can look at their customers and say "Hey, we tried to avoid it but it happened anyway. Blame our shareholders, it's their fault, but please still buy our beer."



What does A-B have to lose by rejecting the bid to save face only to be taken over anyway, assuming that is the intention of the board?

That's my take on it. I can never get as giddy about the likely InBev buyout as Innov8ion, but I realize it's inevitable, and the A-B board has got to do whatever it can to save face among those that want A-B to stay independent and try to hold out for a 'better deal'.

^ Ha. I may come off that way but I'm not really giddy about it. I just think it makes a lot of sense for many reasons.

^ I know. I was just giving you a hard time because you've done a great job of presenting the other side of the coin.



You may be right about the longview of the likely buyout. I just want what's best for St. Louis. And I know when corporate folks start using terms like efficiency and synergy, that I get really scared. I know it's irrational. But hey, it's one of the few irrational fears I have in life.

Well, Inbev today has a judge in Delaware with a court case against AB to oust all 13 admin./board of directors and take the company over in a hostile situation.



Crazy!



Now that will make you more likable in St. Louis and the USA.







READ MORE:

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/06/26/i ... s-to-coup/

Umm, how is that hostile? The A-B shareholders fully own the company, not the Board of Directors (BoD.) The board just oversees it for the owners.

From the article above wrote:InBev’s response, as summed up by colleague David Kesmodel: “It filed suit in Delaware Chancery Court, seeking a judgment to confirm that shareholders acting by written consent could remove all 13 of Anheuser’s directors without cause.” Furthermore, InBev said “that the eight directors elected after 2006 are subject to removal without cause through the written consent procedure.” So InBev is asking Delaware to “confirm that, as InBev strongly believes, the directors elected in 2006 are also now subject to removal through that same mechanism.”



InBev is just checking, you understand.



Still, it would be hard to think of a stronger way to signal to Mr. Market (and A-B) that the charm offensive is over and InBev is ready for war. InBev could have chosen to take out just a few directors, and particularly on five contested spots; instead, it is setting its sights on all 13 of them. And it is already hinting at what happens next if the court gives it permission to remove all 13 directors. The complaint also says, “InBev intends to seek consents from AB’s stockholder to remove AB’s entire board.” InBev also plans to file nominees for a slate of directors and start a proxy fight.

Basically, this is what will likely happen. InBev is bringing the major shareholders to their side of the arena (Warren Buffett included.) Next, they'll put together a new A-B BoD amenable to them. A vote to expel the current BoD will commence. A-B friendly board out, InBev-friendly board in.



The sale will commence shortly thereafter. A friendly takeover would have been more helpful to St. Louis, but McCaskill was too busy waving her flag to figure that one out. Politicians like her don't care what's truly best for St. Louis -- they care about constituent polling. The mark of a good leader is doing what's right even when it may be unpopular. She could have taken a more measured stance but instead she chose to communicate what the public perceives to be right even as her actions helped to stick the knife deeper into our community. Of course, the A-B Board of Directors was ultimately responsible.



And St. Louis will suffer a bit more for it.

^ It definitely changes the mood and leverage in negotiations. An A-B-friendly Board could have negotiated better terms for St. Louis under the sale. Now, an InBev-friendly Board will. Perhaps not a big difference, but a difference nonetheless.

I for one am glad our politicians didn't roll out the welcome mat for a Belgian company to take over an institution. And I would hope InBev could appreciate some healthy skepticism coming from the Show-MeState.

Innov8ion wrote:

Umm, how is that hostile? The A-B shareholders fully own the company, not the Board of Directors (BoD.) The board just oversees it for the owners.

Umm,



that is the beggining of a "hostile" takeover.



Wall Street Journal article quote today (from above article) - last line:

"...might want to pay attention: This is what going hostile means."

Bloomberg Article today:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... fer=europe

" "We've entered into hostile territory,'' said Tom Pirko, president of Bevmark LLC consulting firm in Santa Ynez, California. ``InBev is a very aggressive company. They don't take no for an answer.''

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

innov8ion wrote:Basically, this is what will likely happen. InBev is bringing the major shareholders to their side of the arena (Warren Buffett included.)

Given Mr Buffett's well publicized aversion to debt, I wouldn't assume that he is in favor of this deal.

That's fairly easily handled. SABMiller is likely to purchase A-B's half of Modelo. Some of A-B's non-core assets will be sold.

Warren Buffett wrote:
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2008/05/03/dollar-talk/

“We are happy to invest in businesses that earn their money in the euro, or in companies that derive their earnings in Germany, or from the sterling in the U.K. because I don’t have a feeling that those currencies are going to depreciate in a big way against the dollar,” he said in response to a question from a German shareholder who asked if Berkshire hedged its foreign-currency exposure. “Overall, I think the U.S. is going to continue to follow the policies that have made the dollar weaker in recent years. I’m willing to bet the dollar will weaken against other currencies over the longer term, so I feel no need to hedge those currencies.”

If you know anything about Buffett, you will know he favors assets that bring big non-dollar revenues. A-B's profits are 86% derived from the USA. Tsk Tsk! The InBev deal will help him gain the global exposure/revenues he seeks and practically guarantees success in the huge-growth Far East market.



Given the information above, it seems fairly evident that Buffett will be amenable to an InBev buyout. He'll just keep quiet and stay on the sidelines, because that's what he does. He's a puppet-master and didn't become the world's richest man for nothin'.



Do you really think that InBev would be so forward with this move if they didn't have confidence that they had support?

matguy70 wrote:Innov8ion wrote:

Umm, how is that hostile? The A-B shareholders fully own the company, not the Board of Directors (BoD.) The board just oversees it for the owners.

Umm,



that is the beggining of a "hostile" takeover.

I know what a hostile takeover means. But who is causing the hostility? A shareholder vote will soon determine whether the current A-B Board of Directors is the hostile party or not.



Anyway, this doesn't mean they will perform what's considered a hostile takeover. It's just a threat for now. InBev is likely to put another offer on the table which may be around $68/share. If that is turned down, look for a hostile takeover.

southsidepride wrote:I for one am glad our politicians didn't roll out the welcome mat for a Belgian company to take over an institution. And I would hope InBev could appreciate some healthy skepticism coming from the Show-MeState.

I for one.. wish the politicians stayed the F*ck out of it. Like innov8ion said, it only makes them look like a fool if Inbev does take over. They had NOTHING to win by "standing up." I love AB and all... but i dont want our polys in bed with them. Sleeping with the goverment is only a good fun short term rump, until the wife finds out and all hell breaks lose.