A Box Office Look at Anheuser-Busch & InBev
In Hollywood, the term “high concept” demands that a pitch for a movie be clear within just a few words. Very often, the high-concept pitch gets distilled to a simple cross match: “‘Finding Nemo.’” It’s like ‘Jaws’ meets ‘Garfield’ meets ‘The Lion King,’” might be a (fictional) example.
Such thinking isn’t limited to the palm-lined boulevards of Los Angeles. It applies to the world of mergers and acquisitions as well, as deal makers search for the right precedents to explain how they think a deal will play out. Last night, Deal Journal attended a deal maker-packed soiree where we heard some pretty interesting high-concept connections for InBev’s proposed, unsolicited $46.35 billion takeover of Anheuser-Busch. Here is Wall Street’s concept pitch for Anheuser-InBev drama, and Deal Journal’s own handicapping of how well the comparisons hold:
![]() |
| Photo by J. R. Eyerman/Life Magazine/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images |
Microsoft-Yahoo: This is the favored comparison for fatalists who believe InBev could walk away from Anheuser-Busch at some point. Their fears are fueled by Anheuser-Busch’s option to buy the rest of Mexican brewer Grupo Modelo. That would tack an easy $15 billion to the deal’s price tag and potentially wreck InBev’s credit rating. Those who see Microsoft-Yahoo as a model for InBev-Anheuser also fret about the high premium InBev is paying at $65 a share. The offer is a 35% premium to A-B’s 30-day average share price and well above the highest stock price that A-B has ever hit. That doesn’t leave a lot of room for a sweetened bid. Remember, Microsoft offered a 62% premium to Yahoo at $31 a share, leaving itself very little room to bid up - in retrospect, a misstep.
Con: InBev appears more organized than Microsoft was for Yahoo. Microsoft’s sudden shifts in strategy left observers confused about the company’s plan to win Yahoo. InBev, on the other hand, worked out the financing and chose its banks and strategy well before launching the offer. InBev also is actually taking advice from its investment bankers, while Microsoft frequently locked them out. In a statement today, InBev pointedly said “it has obtained committed financing and has paid approximately $50 million in [financing commitment] fees, demonstrating InBev’s resolve to consummate a combination with Anheuser-Busch.” (The lucky banks that received InBev’s largesse were Banco Santander, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Barclays Capital, BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, Fortis, ING Bank, JP Morgan, Mizuho Corporate Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland). And InBev CEO Carlos Brito’s charm offensive includes guaranteeing A-B that its brand will be represented and that its U.S. breweries will stay open. Microsoft was vague on how it would integrate Yahoo. Microsoft also had Google on its mind the entire time, while InBev doesn’t seem to have a specific competitor it is trying to foil.
InBev Labatt: This is another comparison that strikes fear into A-B workers. After what was then called Interbrew bought Labatt from South American brewer Companhia de Bebidas das Americas, or AmBev, at the time of the creation of InBev, there ensued years of union turmoil, described in this article in the St. Louis-Dispatch.
Con: InBev said it has no plans to tinker extensively with the staffing of U.S. breweries, partially because it needs as much of a presence in the U.S. as it can get.
Dow Jones-News Corp.: The comparison here is to a family-controlled business, facing a rich, unsolicited offer where the family is divided on the bid’s outcome. Just as the Bancrofts disagreed over a sale of Dow Jones, the Busches appear divided about InBev’s offer. You can see the complicated family dynamics encapsulated in August Busch IV’s comments about his father to our own David Kesmodel: “I never, ever had a father-son relationship.” It’s “purely business.” “His love and respect will be when I’m ultimately successful.”
Con: Not much, since the metaphor holds pretty well. It bears remembering that News Corp. won. Still, the dynamics of a divided family complicate the M&A tango.
Great article. Would be interesting to see a comparison that can be made between InBev/A-B and Mars/Wrigley.
Thanks
Thought you would like to know that the correct spelling is “Labatt”, not LaBatt…..
Everyone seems focused on the $65 share price but no one is commenting on the fact that Brito is not inviting BUD shareholders to join Inbev. We’re being paid $65 to walk away with a taxable gain. No attempt is being made to structure a transaction that is tax-free to BUD shareholders.
I work for Anheuser-Busch. I also own stock. Recent statements made by InBev (Carlos Brito) are extremely optimistic. Most of my co-workers are pessimistic that InBev will be able to keep promises made in recent days. Here is what I see. Anheuser-Busch Breweries are utilizing state of the art robotics and automation. Brewing and packaging line efficiencies are the envy of the industry, yes even InBev. Dramatic strides in cutting utility costs per barrel brewed have been achieved. Labor costs have been managed extremely well. I can attest to that as my salary has not kept up with inflation, effectively I have taken a pay cut for the last five years. The labor cost per barrel is simply one of the lowest and certainly comparable with InBev where they operate Breweries in similar economies. I have noticed some analysts’ are starting to see InBev will have a hard time providing shareholder value in this transaction. Let’s get real here, Anheuser-Busch could have participated in the bidding process for some of the purchase that InBev recently made around the world. At the very least we would have raised the price they would pay. SAB has used this tactic successfully in recent years. We Instead focused on a longer term objective with larger potential returns, CHINA. That being said here we are with a weak dollar and in a vulnerable position. Our only hope is the stockholders understand we have not been sleeping and a lot of hard work is starting to pay off. My opinion is that InBev sees this and can’t pass up this opportunity to knock out a large competitor before we turn the corner and become a threat to them down the road. Credit Suisse recently reported we were the only international brewing company that has set up a structure in China that is ready to roll. It has taken us some time but if you factor in the China piece the $65 per share is extremely low, throwing in the exchange rate for the Euro and we would be giving the company away at that price. Keep in mind InBev is offering cash, think also of the tax ramifications as a stock holder. I could go on forever but let me close with this. InBev would be purchasing a large company with a work force that does not fit the InBev culture. Carlos Brito himself said in a recent speech that it does not matter how well you perform if you don’t fit the culture, your employment will not be continued. I see labor unrest and possible product boycotts if the InBev deal is successful. Remember what the boycotts did to Coors Beer. Add to this mix unstable commodity prices along with energy costs soaring just does not seem to be the time for a deal like this. A lot can go wrong when swallowing a company the size of AB. You need everybody pulling in your direction to succeed. Just simply dropping cases of Budweiser into foreign markets does not make it sell. The overly optimistic picture that is painted of Budweiser flying off of the shelf in South America and around the world is just not going to happen. Bottom line is Anheuser-Busch will be damaged goods but InBev will only care about maintaining shelf space in the market place it does not matter what beer fills that space as long as it is a InBev product. The real prize is the China market, that is the goal and the real payback for InBev. From where I sit I see a Carlos Brito that is willing to say anything knowing he won’t be able to keep his promises to America and the employees of Anheuser-Busch. How do I know this, good old fashioned Midwestern common sense. You first clue, Read the disclaimer statement included in all InBev press statements. You won’t see these in news articles and InBev knows that. Very clever.
Get ready to experience a five month Union lock out as we did in London Ontario as the Toronto Union Brewery continued to work.
Later on Labatt Toronto was closed
My guess is SABMIller has the “AB is not American owned” commercials done and sitting on the shelf just waiting to hit the airwaves.
AB Employee you hit the nail on the head. Inbev will destroy AB branding, they know how to buy companies and cut costs they have NO CLUE how to market and sell and they have to make deep cost cuts to pay back 47 BILLION dollars and marketing is a very easy target. AB got almost 50% of the market because they know how to market and sell beer not because they have a much better product.
I for one if this goes through have drank my last AB product, I will simply buy local micros brews.
AB keep up the good fight, sell those non core assets right out from underneath Inbev, they need these to repay the loan.
IMHO Brito is one greedy egotistical corporate raider.
If you believe anything that Brito has to say, shame on you. I’s rumoured that the InBev management is so cheap that the staff have to take their own toilet paper to work. Why would they carry unprofitable business units?
![[go]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-BS137_movie0_20080625123443.jpg)
Deal Journal is an up-to-the-minute take on deals and deal-makers, updated frequently with exclusive running commentary, news flashes, profiles, data and more. The Wall Street Journal's Heidi N. Moore and Dennis Berman are the lead writers, with contributions from other Journal reporters. Send news items, comments and questions to