In a couple of paragraphs, support one of the two viewpoints below concerning the Anheuser Busch InBev merger.
View 1 - AB acted as a well-managed business that takes the actions necessary to remain competitive in a very competitive market. If AB had not approved the merger, its profits and stock price would have fallen, and investment capital would have fled the company. As difficult as the decision was, AB operates in a very competitive environment and owes its stockholders the best return it can provide.
View 2 - The decision to sell the company was both short-sighted and, ultimately, a bad business decision. Any short term benefits AB stockholders reaped from the merger will be more than offset by U.S. job losses, lower tax revenues for States and the U.S. Government, and damage to the U.S. communities in which the company operates. Employees whose employers are loyal to them during difficult times repay that loyalty to the company through hard work. Employees who view themselves as economic pawns to be added or discarded as needed will feel only a marginal commitment to the new AB and their work performance will reflect the negative opinion they hold of their employer.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 1:44 am ad1c9bdddf
Anheuser Busch merger with InBev was essential because it was an excellent opportunity for the shareholder of Anheuser Busch. The merged company becomes one of the five top consumer products company in the world. The merger will bring synergies estimated to be $1.5 billion yearly by 2011. In addition, these synergies will contribute to the earnings per share from 2010. The InBev has committed that all US breweries will remain open. Further, the wholesalers will continue to receive support from the company. The shareholders of Anheuser Busch will gain because the company will expand globally ...
Economic Viewpoint is discussed very comprehensively in this explanation
Anheuser-Busch InBev merger
Please write a paper in APA style, no plagiarism, provide references and citation. It is necessary to use this link (all data there) https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310569/000095013708013472/c47434e10vq.htm
Use this information to assess the amount In-Bev paid for the brands owned by AB. Going back to the article and discussion about Budweiser and InBev, do you think that InBev made a fair offer for Budweiser? What did they actually get for their money? In your discussion, consider whether you think that InBev paid a 35% premium for the brand, more than 35% or less than 35%. Does the 35% number seem fair and accurate to you, or high or low? On what are you basing your thinking?
Write a short paper that answers these questions. Cite all sources.
There is no significant discussion in the InBev article about the tangible assets in play, but Simon and Sullivan's Measured Brand Equity for Food Product Companies (an alternative to Interbrand's valuation method) estimates that AB's brand equity is approximately 35% of the replacement value. That means that should a company need to introduce a new brand to replace the old, its value would diminish by 35%, which is the value of the brand equity. See what you can find about Anheuser-Busch's balance sheet at the time of the buyout.View Full Posting Details