^ Looks like a lot of this will be on the Asynchrony/software side.... if WWT can grow that division and build up the downtown presence that will help. I wish they'd set up a WWT office downtown as well.
WWT corporate leadership needs to be publicly pressed and shamed on not having a presence downtown. Absolutely unacceptable. Here we have a STL company that is willing to invest in downtown Denver but not downtown St. Louis. And their expansion plans for Westport Plaza look very lame and 1990s.
https://www2.wwt.com/latest-news/world- ... dquarters/
https://www2.wwt.com/latest-news/world- ... dquarters/
- 472
How should this shaming take place?
WWT's corporate leadership is paying taxes and running our local soccer club. I wish they weren't so suburban, but at least they're committed to building a global headquarters here. They can expand downtown later while maintaining a sprawling corporate campus just like Webster University.
At some point, Maryland Heights will have to get denser or stagnate. The resulting urban space will look like a medieval town with a rats nest of streets, but at least it'll be a denser and more functional edge city. It's kind of in the middle of St. Louis' population too. When Maryland Heights gets its act together, they'll be ready for more than one transit station. It wouldn't take that much really to get a red line extension from the airport and hit Northwest Plaza along the way.
Turning WestPort into a mixed use village is a good thing. This is to some extent like a thousand office workers being added to the Galleria. It would be a big deal.
WWT's corporate leadership is paying taxes and running our local soccer club. I wish they weren't so suburban, but at least they're committed to building a global headquarters here. They can expand downtown later while maintaining a sprawling corporate campus just like Webster University.
At some point, Maryland Heights will have to get denser or stagnate. The resulting urban space will look like a medieval town with a rats nest of streets, but at least it'll be a denser and more functional edge city. It's kind of in the middle of St. Louis' population too. When Maryland Heights gets its act together, they'll be ready for more than one transit station. It wouldn't take that much really to get a red line extension from the airport and hit Northwest Plaza along the way.
Turning WestPort into a mixed use village is a good thing. This is to some extent like a thousand office workers being added to the Galleria. It would be a big deal.
WWT's downtown STL presence = AsynchronyRandy wrote:WWT corporate leadership needs to be publicly pressed and shamed on not having a presence downtown. Absolutely unacceptable. Here we have a STL company that is willing to invest in downtown Denver but not downtown St. Louis. And their expansion plans for Westport Plaza look very lame and 1990s.
https://www2.wwt.com/latest-news/world- ... dquarters/
- 985
With the Westport redevelopment it seems to as well be a trend towards densification going northwest from Clayton, since similar things are occurring in the area around Monsanto. It is likely no coincidence that its occurring in areas that are very near the theoretical Westport metrolink line.
- 131
Funny thing about Asynchrony Solutions is that they were at 1701 Washington Avenue just a few years ago before moving to Cupples Station. I worked across the street at CPI Corp (1706 Washington) which has apparently since moved to 1701. Startup moves up, big business downsizes - old buildings provide the affordable space to make it all possible.
Looks like St. Louis region had a decent year in terms of being on the right side of the ledger when it comes to M&A
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog ... ollar.html
In St. Louis, 77 businesses were sold in 2015, compared with 83 in 2014, and 132 businesses made acquisitions in 2015, compared with 117 in 2014, said John Hull, managing director of The Fortune Group, which tracks them. Two drivers were low interest rates and buyers sitting on large amounts of investable capital, he said, and 2016 is off to a good start.
Big deals in St. Louis announced or closed in 2015 included the sale of Sigma-Aldrich to Germany-based Merck KGaA for $17 billion, Centene’s purchase of Health Net for $6.8 billion, and a flurry of purchases by cereal maker Post Holdings, including Malt-O-Meal maker MOM Brands for $1.15 billion. Two of the biggest deals last year had historical roots in St. Louis: Anheuser-Busch InBev’s purchase of SABMiller for $117 billion, and Charter Communications’ purchase of Time Warner Cable for $78.7 billion.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog ... ollar.html
In St. Louis, 77 businesses were sold in 2015, compared with 83 in 2014, and 132 businesses made acquisitions in 2015, compared with 117 in 2014, said John Hull, managing director of The Fortune Group, which tracks them. Two drivers were low interest rates and buyers sitting on large amounts of investable capital, he said, and 2016 is off to a good start.
Big deals in St. Louis announced or closed in 2015 included the sale of Sigma-Aldrich to Germany-based Merck KGaA for $17 billion, Centene’s purchase of Health Net for $6.8 billion, and a flurry of purchases by cereal maker Post Holdings, including Malt-O-Meal maker MOM Brands for $1.15 billion. Two of the biggest deals last year had historical roots in St. Louis: Anheuser-Busch InBev’s purchase of SABMiller for $117 billion, and Charter Communications’ purchase of Time Warner Cable for $78.7 billion.
Hopefully Monday brings news of Ameren emerging as the winning bidder for Westar Energy.
Looks like Laclede Group marches on with latest acquisition.
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 7fc84.html
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 7fc84.html
^That was a pleasant surprise. Expensive, but a nice little tack on for Laclede (soon to be Spire).
Hopefully, Ameren still makes a deal for Westar. It'd be nice to see the staid old utility businesses in St. Louis continue to grow while its coal companies circle the drain.
Hopefully, Ameren still makes a deal for Westar. It'd be nice to see the staid old utility businesses in St. Louis continue to grow while its coal companies circle the drain.
- 3,767
Bayer considering Monsanto takeover???
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... j=73142122
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... y-monsanto
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... j=73142122
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... y-monsanto
Bayer makes unsolicited takeover bid......
This article provides a good overview. While Monsanto doesn't seem to be interested now, could Bayer up the ante and get the deal done?
This would be a significant hit to our image/morale here in STL. It is too early to tell what becomes of Monsanto here, if this deal is done. I can't imagine this would be good.
A quote in the article: Bayer supervisory board member Reiner Hoffmann said later Thursday that Monsanto “is a complementary business. There will be synergies.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/bayer-makes ... 1463622691
Another interesting article:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/bayers-bid- ... 1463660474
This article provides a good overview. While Monsanto doesn't seem to be interested now, could Bayer up the ante and get the deal done?
This would be a significant hit to our image/morale here in STL. It is too early to tell what becomes of Monsanto here, if this deal is done. I can't imagine this would be good.
A quote in the article: Bayer supervisory board member Reiner Hoffmann said later Thursday that Monsanto “is a complementary business. There will be synergies.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/bayer-makes ... 1463622691
Another interesting article:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/bayers-bid- ... 1463660474
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 138df.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... j=73425462
Bayer has upped the ante.... $62 billion or $122/share. Looks like this deal is going to happen, STL is going to lose another corporate HQ, Fortune 500 company, probably some jobs through synergies and more than likely, some philanthropy. Let's hope this goes the way of Nestle/Purina, versus AB-INBEV.
From the NY Times:
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... j=73425462
Bayer has upped the ante.... $62 billion or $122/share. Looks like this deal is going to happen, STL is going to lose another corporate HQ, Fortune 500 company, probably some jobs through synergies and more than likely, some philanthropy. Let's hope this goes the way of Nestle/Purina, versus AB-INBEV.
From the NY Times:
The combined company’s seeds business and North American headquarters would be in St. Louis, where Monsanto is based. The company’s pesticides and crop science business would be based in Monheim, Germany. Bayer said it expected to achieve annual cost savings of about $1.5 billion after three years if the two companies were combined.
Speculation is that Monsanto would want to get in the neighborhood of $150-per share. That ain't gonna happen because analysts and shareholders are already showing resistance towards Bayer's $122-per share offering. Bayer is currently offering $62-billion ALL cash. To me, that's still cheap.
Keep in mind too, that Monsanto is fine as a stand alone company on every level. If I had shares of Monsanto, I would want more per share too. This is a premium company. Monsanto can play coy because at the end of the day, it is a strong stock and really doesn't need to merge with a behemoth like Bayer.
However, Monsanto needs to grow its agro-chemical business, which it could do by buying smaller agro-chem firms and investing more in agro-chem research.
Aquiring Syngenta would have helped tremendously in that quest, but Monsanto didn't up the ante. Also, if Monsanto would have purchased Syngenta, the HQs would have been somewhere in Europe. Either way, St. Louis is going to play second-fiddle - even if their Crop Science/Seed/Commercial division is HQ's in St. Louis.
Personally, I think Bayer wants Monsanto's Round-Up just as Monsanto wants Bayer's Crop Science division. I think if a Monsanto-Bayer merger happens, in-time Bayer is going to chew up Monsanto and spit out (spin off) what it doesn't want or need just like Pharmacia did with Monsanto.
Anyway, the Monsanto company and name alone, despite controversy surrounding it, is an industry stalwart. If she is merged, she'll be back in some shape, form or fashion.....I think.
Keep in mind too, that Monsanto is fine as a stand alone company on every level. If I had shares of Monsanto, I would want more per share too. This is a premium company. Monsanto can play coy because at the end of the day, it is a strong stock and really doesn't need to merge with a behemoth like Bayer.
However, Monsanto needs to grow its agro-chemical business, which it could do by buying smaller agro-chem firms and investing more in agro-chem research.
Aquiring Syngenta would have helped tremendously in that quest, but Monsanto didn't up the ante. Also, if Monsanto would have purchased Syngenta, the HQs would have been somewhere in Europe. Either way, St. Louis is going to play second-fiddle - even if their Crop Science/Seed/Commercial division is HQ's in St. Louis.
Personally, I think Bayer wants Monsanto's Round-Up just as Monsanto wants Bayer's Crop Science division. I think if a Monsanto-Bayer merger happens, in-time Bayer is going to chew up Monsanto and spit out (spin off) what it doesn't want or need just like Pharmacia did with Monsanto.
Anyway, the Monsanto company and name alone, despite controversy surrounding it, is an industry stalwart. If she is merged, she'll be back in some shape, form or fashion.....I think.
Let me add this........ Bayer is said to be trying to bulk up its pharmaceutical offerings and research, which is why Bayer shareholders are reluctant about the merger with Monsanto.
On the flip side, imagine what Bayer could do if it sold its Crop Science division to Monsanto. I believe Monsanto would be willing to pay a premium for the division. Instead of Bayer going into debt, Bayer could then use the money from the sell of its Crop Science division towards building its pharmaceutical and chemical businesses, which seems to be a priority for Bayer's shareholders.
On the flip side, imagine what Bayer could do if it sold its Crop Science division to Monsanto. I believe Monsanto would be willing to pay a premium for the division. Instead of Bayer going into debt, Bayer could then use the money from the sell of its Crop Science division towards building its pharmaceutical and chemical businesses, which seems to be a priority for Bayer's shareholders.
Based on these readings, it appears Monsanto's shareholders would get the short end of the stick.
Wall Street Journal: 'Why Bayer’s Big Monsanto Bid Has Fallen Flat'
Bloomberg: 'Bayer’s $62 Billion Monsanto Bid Raises Alarm on Final Price'
Reuters: 'Bayer defies critics with $62 billion Monsanto offer'
Triangle Business News: 'If Bayer buys Monsanto, RTP will lose Bayer's CropScience HQ'
Wall Street Journal: 'Why Bayer’s Big Monsanto Bid Has Fallen Flat'
Bloomberg: 'Bayer’s $62 Billion Monsanto Bid Raises Alarm on Final Price'
Reuters: 'Bayer defies critics with $62 billion Monsanto offer'
Triangle Business News: 'If Bayer buys Monsanto, RTP will lose Bayer's CropScience HQ'
- 8,912
arch city wrote: I think if a Monsanto-Bayer merger happens, in-time Bayer is going to chew up Monsanto and spit out (spin off) what it doesn't want or need just like Pharmacia did with Monsanto.
Anyway, the Monsanto company and name alone, despite controversy surrounding it, is an industry stalwart. If she is merged, she'll be back in some shape, form or fashion.....I think.
I dunno. Monsanto has a terrible reputation that's equated to evil. I think Bayer would want to distance itself as much as possible from the Monsanto name.
This article agrees
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns- ... story.html
That's exactly what I meant by "controversy". It's a company that has a torrid history. However, not everyone looks at Monsanto as evil, which is why it is still around. Do you know how people and entities have tried to take this company down, yet they are still standing?moorlander wrote:I dunno. Monsanto has a terrible reputation that's equated to evil. I think Bayer would want to distance itself as much as possible from the Monsanto name.
This article agrees
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns- ... story.html
Plus, there are industry players - and peers - who actually respect Monsanto. A lot of what some of those competitor companies are able to do is because of Monsanto fighting constant legal battles - and in many cases winning.
But yes, it would behoove Bayer - if merged with Monsanto - to shed the negative image. The Monsanto name would certainly go away, but that's what we thought when it was owned previously by Pharmacia.
When Pharmacia spit out the remains of the old Monsanto, the Monsanto name came back - although the company took on a different focus. The "Monsanto" name is like Dupont or Dow or Anheuser-Busch. A legendary stalwart......despite controversy. That was my point.
- 3,767
Monsanto rejects bid from Bayer.... Can Bayer make an offer high enough to get Monsanto to sell?
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... dd78f.html
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... dd78f.html
Monsanto's rejection and subsequent silence is GOLDEN. This is a Monsanto power-play.
As stated before, Monsanto is said to be wanting $150-per share. Monsanto is not desperate. Monsanto is not an ailing company. They don't have to merge with Bayer. Acquiring Monsanto would benefit Bayer the most - not the other way around. There are no pressures - at least not yet - from Monsanto's shareholders to cave (like we saw from A-B and May Company shareholders).
If Bayer goes higher (or too high), Bayer's shareholders may get very angry. It may be tough for Bayer to get to $150-per share especially with the level of resistance by some Bayer shareholders. But keep in mind that Bayer already knew Monsanto would reject the first takeover bid. Bayer low-balled Monsanto.
Bayer, in my opinion, will go higher because the wheels are already (and have been) in motion. But Monsanto is not a dumb company. Whatever benefits Monsanto's shareholders most, will happen. They will not give Monsanto away for nothing. If Bayer gets up to $135-$140-per share, I could see a potential deal.
However, anything is possible because these games change fast. Monsanto is a tough company. Bayer is going to have to bring it.
As stated before, Monsanto is said to be wanting $150-per share. Monsanto is not desperate. Monsanto is not an ailing company. They don't have to merge with Bayer. Acquiring Monsanto would benefit Bayer the most - not the other way around. There are no pressures - at least not yet - from Monsanto's shareholders to cave (like we saw from A-B and May Company shareholders).
If Bayer goes higher (or too high), Bayer's shareholders may get very angry. It may be tough for Bayer to get to $150-per share especially with the level of resistance by some Bayer shareholders. But keep in mind that Bayer already knew Monsanto would reject the first takeover bid. Bayer low-balled Monsanto.
Bayer, in my opinion, will go higher because the wheels are already (and have been) in motion. But Monsanto is not a dumb company. Whatever benefits Monsanto's shareholders most, will happen. They will not give Monsanto away for nothing. If Bayer gets up to $135-$140-per share, I could see a potential deal.
However, anything is possible because these games change fast. Monsanto is a tough company. Bayer is going to have to bring it.
Another thing.......if Bayer acquires Monsanto, St. Louis will be sitting pretty. Nothing would change for the worse as I see it.
Yes, there would be a loss of a local F500 firm, but the net benefit - at least based on current reports - will be amazing for St. Louis - IF Bayer follows through on its promises. St. Louis would become home to Bayer Crop Science.
Yes, some Monsanto executives and managers would be displaced, but just like the A-B merger set off new local breweries and enterprises, there will be a shitload of new plant and life science companies springing up (pun intended) from Creve Coeur to the Chesterfield Valley. Existing plant science and ag companies would be strengthened likely because of the management shuffle at Monsanto.
I could see new plant science and ag companies forming and building up through M&A activity.
Plant science and agriculture are undoubtedly strengths in St. Louis and would continue to be.
Yes, there would be a loss of a local F500 firm, but the net benefit - at least based on current reports - will be amazing for St. Louis - IF Bayer follows through on its promises. St. Louis would become home to Bayer Crop Science.
Yes, some Monsanto executives and managers would be displaced, but just like the A-B merger set off new local breweries and enterprises, there will be a shitload of new plant and life science companies springing up (pun intended) from Creve Coeur to the Chesterfield Valley. Existing plant science and ag companies would be strengthened likely because of the management shuffle at Monsanto.
I could see new plant science and ag companies forming and building up through M&A activity.
Plant science and agriculture are undoubtedly strengths in St. Louis and would continue to be.
- 1,868
Are small-cap crop science companies as numerous as small-cap breweries?
But the NY Times article that DogtownBnR quoted above said that Crop Sciences would be based in Monheim, Germany.arch city wrote: St. Louis would become home to Bayer Crop Science.
Read the 4th article I posted above.framer wrote:But the NY Times article that DogtownBnR quoted above said that Crop Sciences would be based in Monheim, Germany.
Yeah overall, it's sort of confusing because of all the proposed new divisions and name changes, but ultimately, what is now known as Bayer CropScience's North American HQs, would move to St. Louis from Research Triangle Park in North Carolina.
Bayer's North American CropScience HQs would leave RTP in North Carolina and move to St. Louis. The division would then be renamed "Seeds and Traits" under Bayer's GLOBAL CropScience division, which would be HQ'd in Monheim, Germany. There would also be a commercial division based in St. Louis.
Although Bayer's current North American CropScience HQ would be renamed once it moved to St. Louis, essentially, it would be the North American HQs for Bayer CropScience. "Seeds and Traits" are primarily what they doing at RTP and Chesterfield.
However, the more I read, the more my needle is swaying in the direction that this deal won't happen. Bayer is getting MAJOR backlash. The credit rating firms (Fitch's and Moody's) are coming down on Bayer. Bayer may end up selling Bayer CropScience to Monsanto. It's rumored that Monsanto had offered to BCS for $30-billion in March.
arch city wrote: However, the more I read, the more my needle is swaying in the direction that this deal won't happen. Bayer is getting MAJOR backlash. The credit rating firms (Fitch's and Moody's) are coming down on Bayer. Bayer may end up selling Bayer CropScience to Monsanto. It's rumored that Monsanto had offered to BCS for $30-billion in March.
If this is the case, could it be that Monsanto encouraged Bayer to bid, knowing that they couldn't financially support a high enough offer, in order encourage Bayer's investors to sell?