^^ Centene is moving 1000 positions here from California.
Wells bought Wachovia which before that bought AG Edwards and it was a positive for STL.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Express Scrpits purchased new jerseys LARGEST company, Medco, a few years ago. While some jobs are still there, I think many were transferred here.
Behind the Monsanto Deal, Doubts About the GMO Revolution
http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-the- ... 1473880429
http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-the- ... 1473880429
Some people on here are freaking out, but it's interesting we don't how the merger will impact local jobs yet. Nonetheless, it's safe to assume there will be jobs losses locally. They have to pay for the merger somehow and cutting jobs - especially duplications - is one way to compensate. The bulk of some of those cuts may happen in other cities around the United States and other countries. Monsanto is a global firm with an estimated 25,000 employees.
With that said, I am more concerned about the potential job losses locally versus losing the corporate HQs. St. Louis has tons of HQs and corporations - large, small, public, private, North American and U.S. - and many of them are some of the fastest growing in America.
Further, other local firms are always acquiring local and non-local firms. Just yesterday, Chesterfield-based Amdocs acquired three small tech firms. Square, Inc. has (essentially) come home - even though it is based in Silicon Valley - and has added hundreds of high-paying jobs. This is what St. Louis needs to grow and thrive - jobs. Having a major corporate HQs is wonderful, but having JOBS for locals is what is most important.
Amazon is based in Seattle, but it is hiring over 1200 employees locally.
St. Louis' corporate community is strong and losing Monsanto - while it may sting for some - is not going to change that much. St. Louis will have Bayer's Seeds & Traits division and North American Commercial HQs - and that's major.
For the record, this is not Monsanto's first exit from St. Louis as an independent company. Years ago, 1999 to be exact, Monsanto was a participant in a "merger of equals" with Pharmacia. St. Louis lost the corporate HQs then too. Later, after their short-lived marriage fizzled, Monsanto was spun-off then reinvented itself in St. Louis. It grew exponentially into one of the world's largest agrochemical and seed companies when prior to the first merger it had been a global conglomerate. However, it appears Monsanto - as an agrochem firm - hit a wall despite its phenomenal growth over the last decade.
Keep in mind too, that if Monsanto had been able to purchase Syngenta, the HQ of the combined company would have moved overseas - so either way - St. Louis would have lost the HQs. The agrochemical industry is changing and is in a state of flux.
This is not St. Louis' fault or some sign of corporate deficiencies in St. Louis. It's just the nature of business.
With that said, I am more concerned about the potential job losses locally versus losing the corporate HQs. St. Louis has tons of HQs and corporations - large, small, public, private, North American and U.S. - and many of them are some of the fastest growing in America.
Further, other local firms are always acquiring local and non-local firms. Just yesterday, Chesterfield-based Amdocs acquired three small tech firms. Square, Inc. has (essentially) come home - even though it is based in Silicon Valley - and has added hundreds of high-paying jobs. This is what St. Louis needs to grow and thrive - jobs. Having a major corporate HQs is wonderful, but having JOBS for locals is what is most important.
Amazon is based in Seattle, but it is hiring over 1200 employees locally.
St. Louis' corporate community is strong and losing Monsanto - while it may sting for some - is not going to change that much. St. Louis will have Bayer's Seeds & Traits division and North American Commercial HQs - and that's major.
For the record, this is not Monsanto's first exit from St. Louis as an independent company. Years ago, 1999 to be exact, Monsanto was a participant in a "merger of equals" with Pharmacia. St. Louis lost the corporate HQs then too. Later, after their short-lived marriage fizzled, Monsanto was spun-off then reinvented itself in St. Louis. It grew exponentially into one of the world's largest agrochemical and seed companies when prior to the first merger it had been a global conglomerate. However, it appears Monsanto - as an agrochem firm - hit a wall despite its phenomenal growth over the last decade.
Keep in mind too, that if Monsanto had been able to purchase Syngenta, the HQ of the combined company would have moved overseas - so either way - St. Louis would have lost the HQs. The agrochemical industry is changing and is in a state of flux.
This is not St. Louis' fault or some sign of corporate deficiencies in St. Louis. It's just the nature of business.
I sure hope so.debaliviere wrote:And as I understand it, Monsanto's digital/tech offering was one of its major selling points for Bayer. It could be a major source of investment here.
And just a couple of days ago Stifel announced the acquisition of a large firm in Indy. Seems folks only pay attention when a local firm sells out, but ignore the acquisitions.
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 91ddd.html
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 91ddd.html
Yep. I think AGE had about 2,500-3,000 employees pre-merger with Wachovia. Post-merger it is estimated to be about 5,000 under Wells Fargo Advisors - which acquired Wachovia.thedude wrote:Wells bought Wachovia which before that bought AG Edwards and it was a positive for STL.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wells Fargo moved people to St. Louis from both coasts. Then they added jobs. How sustainable? I don't know.
But it was clearly a win for St. Louis.
Then get this..............Benjamin F. Edwards jumped ship from AGE/Wachovia/Wells to open his own firm, which is principled on the old AGE-model. Clayton-based Benjamin F. Edwards is one of the fastest-growing wealth management firms in the United States.
A win-win for St. Louis and I think the Monsanto merger could deliver the same results.
"Synergies": Bayer and Monsanto used the one word that should make their employees very nervous
And there's no telling if the synergies are in St. Louis, Raleigh-Durham, California or Iowa.
And there's no telling if the synergies are in St. Louis, Raleigh-Durham, California or Iowa.
- 985
^ Wasn't there a number of startups from former Monsanto Employees in related fields already?
It was of note that there was a number of job losses planned here anyway, so it may not be that much different regardless. Also Bayer may pull some of its assets in the US to here due to infrastructure and talent.
Isn't the Nestle Purina deal another one where it caused some of the purchasers assets to move here? And they seem to still have community presence as well. And another is Boeing McDonnell Douglas deal, since it seemed Boeing moved a number of their defense operations they had before to the facilities here, and is even adding jobs from their commercial aviation division in the near future which is something that wasn't a part of McDonnell Douglas local operations. Also the Boeing example, they have their HQ in Chicago, but the bulk of their jobs is elsewhere and is more associated with places like Seattle and St. Louis for their respective divisions.
As for "synergies", it depends on where. It would be less likely here if a lot of what's done here now isn't already done by Bayer and that losses likely would be in administrative function (unless its they move their functions they have the US already here). Also don't assume this merger will even happen too, since there is the possibility its blocked for antitrust reasons in the US and/or EU. Though if that's the case Monsanto will get 2 billion dollars from Bayer as insurance.
It was of note that there was a number of job losses planned here anyway, so it may not be that much different regardless. Also Bayer may pull some of its assets in the US to here due to infrastructure and talent.
Isn't the Nestle Purina deal another one where it caused some of the purchasers assets to move here? And they seem to still have community presence as well. And another is Boeing McDonnell Douglas deal, since it seemed Boeing moved a number of their defense operations they had before to the facilities here, and is even adding jobs from their commercial aviation division in the near future which is something that wasn't a part of McDonnell Douglas local operations. Also the Boeing example, they have their HQ in Chicago, but the bulk of their jobs is elsewhere and is more associated with places like Seattle and St. Louis for their respective divisions.
As for "synergies", it depends on where. It would be less likely here if a lot of what's done here now isn't already done by Bayer and that losses likely would be in administrative function (unless its they move their functions they have the US already here). Also don't assume this merger will even happen too, since there is the possibility its blocked for antitrust reasons in the US and/or EU. Though if that's the case Monsanto will get 2 billion dollars from Bayer as insurance.
I think Arch City makes a good point.arch city wrote:"Synergies": Bayer and Monsanto used the one word that should make their employees very nervous
And there's no telling if the synergies are in St. Louis, Raleigh-Durham, California or Iowa.
I do feel Bayer take over overall is more in line with InBev buying out AB at a premium relative to the ones that turn positive for St. Louis. Bayer is a larger company but already laden with a significant debt load that just took on a pretty good chunk of more debt to pay the premium on share price it offered. I believe they are already publically stating the idea that they will be paying down this debt much faster to appease investors who are concerned.
- 985
^ On the macro level it does seem like that one, it all depends on the local impact. Wasn't the ABInBev deal had the side effect of jumpstarting the local craft brew scene? Since its possible this deal could do similar things with startups (though it seems the startups in similar fields as Monsanto has already started, but could accelerate)
Also of note was a recent 538 post on how St. Louis had the fastest shift in percentage of workers in startups the past serveral years. Since for the longest time the metro area was about 2 percentage points lower in percent of workforce in startups, but in the last few years broke the trend is is almost 2 percentage points higher than national average for percent of workforce in startups. (note is almost all other fast risers were smaller metro areas and nationally overall the percentage is dropping)
Also of note was a recent 538 post on how St. Louis had the fastest shift in percentage of workers in startups the past serveral years. Since for the longest time the metro area was about 2 percentage points lower in percent of workforce in startups, but in the last few years broke the trend is is almost 2 percentage points higher than national average for percent of workforce in startups. (note is almost all other fast risers were smaller metro areas and nationally overall the percentage is dropping)
T]he sale of [Monsanto,] an icon of American agriculture also spotlights a sagging farm economy that shows few signs of rebounding as U.S. farmers prepare to reap another record corn and soybean crop this autumn. Declining prices have roiled the agriculture market, from farm-equipment makers to grocery stores, even as the strong production provides a boon to transport companies feeding off the heavy volume”
You make a lot of excellent points. Yes, a number of Monsanto's former researchers and executives have started startups in St. Louis - some have been bought already.imperialmog wrote:^ Wasn't there a number of startups from former Monsanto Employees in related fields already?
It was of note that there was a number of job losses planned here anyway, so it may not be that much different regardless. Also Bayer may pull some of its assets in the US to here due to infrastructure and talent.
Isn't the Nestle Purina deal another one where it caused some of the purchasers assets to move here? And they seem to still have community presence as well.
Also, Nestle bought Ralston-Purina's pet food business when William Stiritz put it up for sale. Ralston-Purina was also a MAJOR local conglomerate (Energizer, Hostess, Agribrands, Foodmaker (Jack-In-The Box), Purina etc). When Nestle purchased Purina's pet food business they added jobs in St. Louis - and I believe - moved the Latin America/Caribbean offices to St. Louis. Nestle-Purina then renovated and built new facilities downtown. I also think it's safe to say N-P helped to spawn the on-going wave of pet food/pet product companies moving to St. Louis. Very positive.
And I know for a fact that Raleigh-Durham (Research Triangle Park) has both Bayer, which is where Bayer's Crop Science HQs are currently located, and a Monsanto research facility. What happens at RTP will be interesting to watch.imperialmog wrote:As for "synergies", it depends on where. It would be less likely here if a lot of what's done here now isn't already done by Bayer and that losses likely would be in administrative function (unless its they move their functions they have the US already here). Also don't assume this merger will even happen too, since there is the possibility its blocked for antitrust reasons in the US and/or EU. Though if that's the case Monsanto will get 2 billion dollars from Bayer as insurance.
Trust me, the merger is going through by hook or crook. It's the biggest deal of the year. Plus Bayer's new CEO could be a goner if Bayer has to pay Monsanto a $2-billion dollar break-up fee. I personally don't recall a break-up fee that expensive. It's a done deal, I think. Anti-trust regulators will make the companies unload (or spin-off) divisions/businesses in order to gain approval.
The spin-offs could bold well for St. Louis depending on what is spun off OR it could be a spin-off or two from Bayer's portfolio. I don't know....but my greatest hunch is that it will happen. The boards for both companies have spoken and are likely to do what they can to consummate the merger.
Just my three-cents.
yeah the "wall" was prices dropping by 50%... that's what has hurt Monsanto.hit a wall despite its phenomenal growth over the last decade.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6092444
- 403
Ive never been the most receptive on mergers when it comes to Saint.Louis companies being acquired by another company from another city or country mainly because Saint.Louis is always on the losing end however i feel this merger will be a major positive for Saint.Louis i don't think i ever felt excited about a merger like this one
- 8,912
^ did you miss all of the examples posted today of mergers where St. Louis wasn't on the losing end?
Thirty years ago, Express Scripts didn't even exist. Today their revenue is over $100 Billion.St.Louis1764 wrote: Saint.Louis is always on the losing end
The next big takeover target.framer wrote:Thirty years ago, Express Scripts didn't even exist. Today their revenue is over $100 Billion.St.Louis1764 wrote: Saint.Louis is always on the losing end
-RBB
Or it shows federal and central banks policies of very cheap money on both sides of the pond that facilitates these debt laden deals. Bayer will see zero growth in Europe, global economy stalled so it made its move on the one growing or stable economyhebeters2 wrote:T]he sale of [Monsanto,] an icon of American agriculture also spotlights a sagging farm economy that shows few signs of rebounding as U.S. farmers prepare to reap another record corn and soybean crop this autumn. Declining prices have roiled the agriculture market, from farm-equipment makers to grocery stores, even as the strong production provides a boon to transport companies feeding off the heavy volume”
I would also argue that American agriculture is much more tied to global commodities as we produce way more grains, corns, beans, etc then needed and therefore prices will go up and down on global supplies and weather patterns. In other words, not much different than oil. If anything American agriculture is globalized more then ever and up and downs don't correlate very much to American economy IMO
Ypu also have to wonder if their was a big disconnect when farm land prices soared way beyond the commodity prices. Gave farmers a lot of capital and imagine some of them made big bets.
- 1,642
- 6,121
Oh goody. Let's start with disinformation and then jump down Godwin's well in the first ten seconds. Ongoing eugenics scheme? Really? Viral banana vaccines? You can't watch this stuff and stay sane. It's as bad as the some of the bile you hear on the radio if you happen to accidentally forget the change the tuner after a Cardinals game. Sadly, it might even be worse. Oh boy! I think I'm going to be trying to blink off that little psychological migraine in a box for the next week. </rant>
- 1,642
Decent rant, mildly entertaining. Full of misdirection though. Try to balance the truth and the comedy and you might be on to something.symphonicpoet wrote:Oh goody. Let's start with disinformation and then jump down Godwin's well in the first ten seconds. Ongoing eugenics scheme? Really? Viral banana vaccines? You can't watch this stuff and stay sane. It's as bad as the some of the bile you hear on the radio if you happen to accidentally forget the change the tuner after a Cardinals game. Sadly, it might even be worse. Oh boy! I think I'm going to be trying to blink off that little psychological migraine in a box for the next week. </rant>
- 6,121
It's a rant. I'm complaining. I don't think anything I said is patently false, but I don't believe I'm pretending to be a reporter. Is the video you posted satire? It surely doesn't look like it. Is there truth in it? Sure, there's some buried between falsehoods. Yes, Bayer has been around a long time. Yes, they were active in Germany during WWII. Yes, they've benefited from the massive human tragedy that the regime perpetuated. Does that make the current chemists Nazis? Absolutely not. Most Germans I know have been quit apologetic for the their grandparents (or great grandparents) roles in the war. Is there any evidence for an ongoing eugenics program? That's a hell of a claim. I surely haven't seen any. There's a contention that Bayer will sell the cures to transgenic foods. What cures are needed? No diseases have ever been linked to transgenic foods to my knowledge. And my whole blasted family works in the biz, so I've tried to pay attention.
I think it's clear enough that there is some rather blatant misinformation in the video, mixed in with innuendo bordering on libel. Hopefully we can all agree on that. So what's bothering you about my rant? Are you upset that I compared it to an unspecified radio news program? Are you of the opinion that radio news programs are all better than that? Surely none among us would be quite that foolish. After all, the most untutored of local activists can find a way to get their voices aired on talk radio stations ranging from crunchy community outlets to fiery religious networks. And Cardinals Nation isn't especially picky, so long as the licensing fees are paid. It's a big family. Lots of stuff comes on around the country after Cards games. If you're worried that I'm picking on your favorite radio show by comparing it to this video then maybe you need to consider why your own favorite radio show, whatever that might be, could possibly be seen as similar. Could partisan politics play into it? Sure. We're pretty divided right now. I'm partisan. They're partisan. The news is often partisan. Maybe you're partisan too. Maybe you think I'm the other partisan. Maybe if I watched the whole video it would be more clear why you're offended at my little rant . . .
But honestly, I have to tell you, I can't make myself sit through ten minutes of that. It's just . . . so angry and so thinly sourced in the first two that I don't know that it matters what's in the next eight. I'll certainly never see them unless someone wants to pay me a fair sum. That's a lot of pain and suffering for which I'd wish to be compensated. I've been known to review things once in a while, but if you want me to review something I don't like I would expect some compensation. So again, I'm not reporting. I'm complaining, not engaging in journalism.
But then . . . neither are they.
I think it's clear enough that there is some rather blatant misinformation in the video, mixed in with innuendo bordering on libel. Hopefully we can all agree on that. So what's bothering you about my rant? Are you upset that I compared it to an unspecified radio news program? Are you of the opinion that radio news programs are all better than that? Surely none among us would be quite that foolish. After all, the most untutored of local activists can find a way to get their voices aired on talk radio stations ranging from crunchy community outlets to fiery religious networks. And Cardinals Nation isn't especially picky, so long as the licensing fees are paid. It's a big family. Lots of stuff comes on around the country after Cards games. If you're worried that I'm picking on your favorite radio show by comparing it to this video then maybe you need to consider why your own favorite radio show, whatever that might be, could possibly be seen as similar. Could partisan politics play into it? Sure. We're pretty divided right now. I'm partisan. They're partisan. The news is often partisan. Maybe you're partisan too. Maybe you think I'm the other partisan. Maybe if I watched the whole video it would be more clear why you're offended at my little rant . . .
But honestly, I have to tell you, I can't make myself sit through ten minutes of that. It's just . . . so angry and so thinly sourced in the first two that I don't know that it matters what's in the next eight. I'll certainly never see them unless someone wants to pay me a fair sum. That's a lot of pain and suffering for which I'd wish to be compensated. I've been known to review things once in a while, but if you want me to review something I don't like I would expect some compensation. So again, I'm not reporting. I'm complaining, not engaging in journalism.
But then . . . neither are they.
- 1,868
There's really no need to say anything beyond "this is a link to InfoWars".