urbanSTL

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

goat314 wrote:

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

Wow, completely miss the mark much?



This has nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with city earnings tax. Or the city itself, for that matter.

You always miss the mark.

Coming from you, that's a compliment. It means I am always right.

JMedwick wrote:Certainly AB has failed to growth its stock price. That said, most of your argument for the merger seems to be based on a dislike of Budwiser itself rather than on its prospects for future growth. If the Chinese and Indians like the taste of Bud, then it doesn't matter what you think.

then gradually decrease in value as Miller/Coors and InBev rip BUD to shreds.

JCity wrote:

then gradually decrease in value as Miller/Coors and InBev rip BUD to shreds.

that is complete bs. A-B has consistently grown its market share over the last two decades. Miller and Coors, are you joking? They're not "growing" at all. I think A-B products topped out at 53% of the market and is now at 47%.

I'm not an economist, but I don't get these company "fire sales", that its ALL about shareholders stock value. Why didn't companies sell out long before then? The history of AG Edwards or A-B, yawn ,I'll take the huge stock value and totally sell out one of americas most famed companies. And sure, Budweiser isn't the best tasting beer, but it or Bud Light, is by far the best selling brand and that's due to A-B's crazy marketing. This will NOT happen under In-Bev and the company will go completely down the tubes. it's sad that this is only about making a buck in the short term and ruining the company/brand in the long term. this buyout is a TERRIBLE idea.

MarketWatch [url]http://snipurl.com/2c1do[/url] wrote:Content with a dominant stateside market share of nearly 50%, the St. Louis-based company was slow to innovate, catching on late to a consumer shift toward imports, craft brews and distilled spirits, categories that have flourished over the past decade while mass-market beer went into slow but seemingly inexorable decline.



Those factors, coupled with the weak U.S. dollar and a steady dimunition of family control, has left it open to a once-unthinkable takeover. And InBev has apparently stepped up to the plate.

....

As other brewers looked to fast-growing international markets, often acquiring local brands and putting multinational marketing muscle and efficiency behind them, Gilpin said, A-B "did not participate." "They were asleep at the wheel on the international front," she said, and "now they're trying to turn the ship around. But it is probably too late."

It doesn't matter whether you think the buyout is a terrible idea or not. What matters is that the transaction makes sense for the shareholders of both companies.

It is the truth and any shareholder will know it by seeing what BUD has done for them in the last 8 years. Absolutely zilch

Wabash wrote:


BUD stock has returned about 45% in the last 8 years and about 150% in the last 10 years (both not including recent speculation). Not stellar, but not zilch either.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

kim_mcgrath13 wrote:I'm not sure of its potential, but I just received a link to a petition against the buyout, at http://www.savebudweiser.com.



I'm encouraging friends and family to sign, and would love to know of other efforts to stop the buyout

The potential is zero. This petition will have no effect either way.

I love a cold red neck on a hot summer day.

I don't want to have to drink Schlafly!

Rediculous Idea. No one will buy it anymore, theres plenty more out there and people will start driking Miller, etc before they drink a foreign bud light.

First you sell out Busch Stadium, now the whole city of St. Louis? All to make more $? How much more do you need!!!!!

If this takeover were to happen would the ticker symbol change to INU.S.? We unknowingly sold Washington DC to foreigners years ago, and look what's happened. AB is a Main Street American icon, represenitive of American's. What American asset is next, the Liberty Bell perhaps?

I worked there 20 years. I don't want my pension paid in Euros.

Screw InBev, bunch of communist cost-cutting investment bankers

I like Tequzia

Go Okemos Chiefs!

They can take our oil but they cant take our beer!

In Bev is stupid....and what a stupid name for a company too.

I heard Inbev hates puppies, children, and Clydsdales... What scum!

I heard In Bev wants to buy out the Super Bowl and replace it with a Soccer Bowl. We must stop this madness!!!!

John Claude Van Damn: Keep Bud in zee St. Louie. Belgium should sponsor my movies and not ze Bud. Hi ya! I'ma karate chop zis deal.

What will In Bev want next? To move their HQ to the Arch?

This is silly. BUD has had flatline sales growth and is not managed aggressively enough. InBev can take BUD to the next level. It doesn't mean they're going to fire everyone and stop making your favorite watery beer. Why buy it to kill it? You are a bunch of Xenophobes. No wonder the USA is going down the toilet. You live in a global economy - grow up!

Wabash wrote:innov8ion wrote:

It doesn't matter whether you think the buyout is a terrible idea or not. What matters is that the transaction makes sense for the shareholders of both companies.

I like money just as much as the next American, but what if there is some value in national, regional, and local identity and creativity that is not easily quantiifiable and distributable to shareholders. There are extremely valuable and yet unquantifiable assets that would be devalued if not destroyed by a Belgian acquisition. There is a powerful brand loyalty, nostalgia, and even patriotism that Budweiser evokes. Budweiser is part of St. Louis' identity. They support local charities, support the local economy, support the local tourism/national profile. The free-market economy has its merits, and has made a lot of people rich, but it shouldn't be considered a perfect system.



The shareholders certainly factor into this transaction, but they are not the only ones. I think it is naive, and adhering to a sale-price obsessed system to think shareholder return is the only important element of this sale.

Wabash wrote:

It is the truth and any shareholder will know it by seeing what BUD has done for them in the last 8 years. Absolutely zilch

BUD stock has returned about 45% in the last 8 years and about 150% in the last 10 years (both not including recent speculation). Not stellar, but not zilch either.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.

kim_mcgrath13 wrote:Adam Smith was the first economic theorist to talk about the "invisible hand" of the market and how it balances itself out. But other economists such as Daniel Cohen discuss the importance of local production especially since we're living in an international system where individual states are the most important actors. You have to look out for your own interests. I'm sure that is what the stockholders would do, but I think there is more to consider in this case where the company has built a cultural icon in St. Louis.